New York City last week

[LesPalenik]

However, after a bit of perspective adjustment in Photoshop, the tower appears to be leaning as one would expect. 
Refer attached image.

Even the people at the right edge of the tower seem to be leaning. They must be thinking it is expected in Pisa.

[Ray]

Even the people at the right edge of the tower seem to be leaning. They must be thinking it is expected in Pisa.

No, they are not. They are upright. Look more carefully. Zoom in.

[Ray]

Okay! I've zoomed in for you, to save you the trouble. Here's an extremely high resolution crop. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?

+1.   

[Ray]

Ray, what your silly posts have to do with the thread?

I'm amazed you can't work that out and have to ask. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm amazed you can't work that out and have to ask. 

I have pointed out in reply #11 that the central building is indeed leaning by about 1.5 degrees. You said I must be joking and nitpicking. You then kept talking on two pages about leaning buildings and Pisa, blah, blah, an unnecessary repetition of what I already stated in the reply #11.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

As the one who started this thread, I think I should be permitted to express my opinion.
To wit, Slobodan's posts #11 and #15 said all that needed to be said about the sloppiness of my original image, and my posts #18, 19 and 28 acknowledged Slobodan's correction and showed some further variants.

Anything beyond that is surely nothing but hijacking of the thread. If any one wants to start a separate thread about tilting of buildings and whether all vertical parallels should always appear parallel, or whether pigs have wings, feel free to do so.

But please: no more of it here.

[Ray]

I have pointed out in reply #11 that the central building is indeed leaning by about 1.5 degrees. You said I must be joking and nitpicking. You then kept talking on two pages about leaning buildings and Pisa, blah, blah, an unnecessary repetition of what I already stated in the reply #11.

And I pointed out, in response, that the leaning of the central building was very slight and of little consequence compared with the much greater leaning of the building on the right side of the image, which appeared to be leaning even more than the famous Tower of Pisa.

Eric attempted to justify this effect by claiming his image represented the effect that one normally sees, of towering tall buildings in New York. I responded to Eric by stating truthfully that I never get any impression of vertical buildings leaning to one side as I walk through a city with tall skyscrapers, and I tried to explain why the natural human vision does not produce this effect that vertical buildings can appear to lean simply because they are tall and viewed from the ground.

You then went on to demonstrate that tall buildings do appear to taper towards the top, like a pyramid, from the perspective of the viewer on the ground, and posted an image demonstrating this effect.

I have simply pointed out that this effect is a separate issue, and that 'tapering towards the top', like a pyramid, is not an example of an entire building appearing to lean. If anyone has hijacked this thread, it is you who have hijacked my criticism of one of  Eric's photos, by presenting false and/or irrelevant arguments.

What's the matter with you two? Can't accept a bit of criticism? Dear me! 

[Ray]

If any one wants to start a separate thread about tilting of buildings and whether all vertical parallels should always appear parallel, or whether pigs have wings, feel free to do so.

But please: no more of it here.

Really! You think people on this forum should be free to start threads on 'whether pigs have wings', or whether 'all vertical parallels should always appear parallel', which is clearly nonsense, yet you seem to object to my very sensible and rational criticism. How puzzling!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ray, those buildings (denoted by the green lines) do not lean, they converge, which is perspective. If those two green lines would be parallel (but not vertical) then you could argue they are leaning. It is either amusing or annoying, depending on how charitable one is,  that you are debating this.

[Ray]

Ray, those buildings (denoted by the green lines) do not lean, they converge, which is perspective. If those two green lines would be parallel (but not vertical) then you could argue they are leaning. It is either amusing or annoying, depending on how charitable one is,  that you are debating this.

Slobodan,
We know, or at least assume, those buildings denoted by the green line are not leaning. If they actually were leaning, the New York authorities would deal with the issue because the buildings would be an obvious danger.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the camera is distorting the perspective and is not portraying what the photographer sees before he puts his eye to the viewfinder. This distortion can be observed in your own living room. Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame, or glass sliding door. The verticals remain vertical. There's no sense of converging towards the top of the door frame.

Do the same whilst looking through the camera viewfinder, with camera tilted upwards. It's quite noticeable that the vertical door frames converge towards the top, as seen through the viewfinder. Tilt the camera up and then down. The verticals will converge to the top and then converge to the bottom. Tilt your eyes up and then down, without the camera. There's no sense of converging verticals at all. Got it?

[Rob C]

Slobodan,
We know, or at least assume, those buildings denoted by the green line are not leaning. If they actually were leaning, the New York authorities would deal with the issue because the buildings would be an obvious danger.

The point I'm trying to get across is that the camera is distorting the perspective and is not portraying what the photographer sees before he puts his eye to the viewfinder. This distortion can be observed in your own living room. Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame, or glass sliding door. The verticals remain vertical. There's no sense of converging towards the top of the door frame.

Do the same whilst looking through the camera viewfinder, with camera tilted upwards. It's quite noticeable that the vertical door frames converge towards the top, as seen through the viewfinder. Tilt the camera up and then down. The verticals will converge to the top and then converge to the bottom. Tilt your eyes up and then down, without the camera. There's no sense of converging verticals at all. Got it?

And have you noticed that, if you stand by a high wall and look upwards at the sky, the clouds stand still but the building careers across the scene? It can make you feel totally disorientated.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ray, you are unbelievable. In post after post you were talking about “leaning” buildings and I kept saying it is perspective. Now you apparently agree it is perspective and that, aside from Pisa, there are no leaning buildings, at last not in New York. Good Lord!

If camera (lens actually) is exaggerating perspective, it is doing it to perspective, still not causing leaning of buildings.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Tilt your eyes up and focus on the ceiling above a door frame...

Someone once told me that "low ceilings" (both temporal and physical) may often lead to distorted vision/perspective

[Chris Kern]

I just discovered this thread and reading it is giving me a sense of vertigo.  (Attached: Intersection of Routes 4 and 20, Tokyo, 2017)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I just discovered this thread and reading it is giving me a sense of vertigo.  (Attached: Intersection of Routes 4 and 20, Tokyo, 2017)

Amazing!
All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left!   

[Chris Kern]

All the buildings to the right of the highway are tilting to the right, and all the buildings to the left are tilting to the left!

It's a real relief to hear you say that.  I thought it was just me.

[Ray]

Ray, you are unbelievable. In post after post you were talking about “leaning” buildings and I kept saying it is perspective. Now you apparently agree it is perspective and that, aside from Pisa, there are no leaning buildings, at last not in New York. Good Lord!

If camera (lens actually) is exaggerating perspective, it is doing it to perspective, still not causing leaning of buildings.

Of course a camera can't cause a building to lean. That would be the silliest statement of all. 

The camera (and lens) distorts the perspective in a way that makes the building appear to lean. Photoshop has tools to correct for this.

If you were to show Eric's first photo in this thread to someone who was not familiar with photos in general and knew nothing about photography, such as a young child from a remote village or even an adult in that remote village, such a person would express certainty that the buildings on the left and right of the image are leaning.

You make me feel as though I'm communicating with someone who's in a complete state of denial. 

[Ray]

Someone once told me that "low ceilings" (both temporal and physical) may often lead to distorted vision/perspective

Try looking at a row of tall trees with straight, vertical trunks, like Pine trees. Whilst standing at the base of the trees, with eye to the viewfinder and camera held vertically, tilt the camera slowly up and down. As you slowly tilt the camera up, in order to see the top of the trees, you should notice the trees on each side of the viewfinder frame, gradually lean towards the centre, in slow motion, then gradually lean in the opposite direction as you tilt the camera down.

Try the same eye movements from the same position but without the camera. There should be no impression of any leaning. I've tried it. Maybe your mind works differently.